John Kerry on Environment

Jr Senator (MA), Democratic nominee for President

Minority communities more likely polluted than white areas

While all Americans are at risk of suffering the ill-effects of air pollution--and all pollution--not all are suffering equally. In the US, poor & minority Americans have a much greater chance of becoming ill from environmental toxins because they have a
greater chance of living near a polluting industry than do white, wealthier Americans.

A 2005 investigation found that people of color were 79% more likely than whites to reside in communities where pollution posed the highest health risks. In the most
polluted areas, 1 of every 6 people lived in poverty.

The practice of local governments encouraging the placement of noxious industries in poor neighborhoods goes back to the early part of the 20th century, where minority communities were zoned
as “industrial” while white communities were zoned “residential.” The trend continues today. Poor & ethnic communities are often assumed to be politically powerless & therefore are targeted wen it comes time to locate a new power plant or toxic dump.

New environmentalists motivated by personal stewardship

The new environmentalism reflects our culture, our beliefs as a people, and our best instincts as individuals. As we learn through the stories here, today's best "environmentalists" are often people who are motivated not by ideology or membership in
particular organizations or causes, but by a simple sense of personal responsibility as stewards of our planet. Indeed, they feel morally compelled to take action, and their example should inspire the rest of us to live out our own beliefs as well.

Source: This Moment On Earth, by John Kerry, p.199
, Jan 1, 2007

Live by "Precautionary Principle": first, do no harm

The challenge is clear and compelling. Climate change is threatening the planet, life, and land due to human-made greenhouse gases. Fish are dying in water polluted with pesticide, chemical, and animal waste.
Minority communities continue to be victimized by unwanted toxic waste dumps and dirty power plants.

We are paying an extraordinary price for our unwillingness to live by the precautionary principle other nations have adopted:
First, do no harm. But common sense can prevail, and Americans in every state are making a collective statement about right and wrong:
It is right to take precautions against scientifically predicted disaster; it is wrong to suffer disease and danger because polluters are allowed to call the shots.

The Clear Skies bill is Orwellian and makes things worse

The Clear Skies bill is one of those Orwellian names you pull out of the sky, slap it onto something. If they just left the Clean Air Act all alone the way it is today, no change, the air would be cleaner than it is if you passed the Clear Skies Act.
We’re going backwards. In fact, his environmental enforcement chief air quality person at the EPA resigned in protest over what they’re doing. They’re going backwards on the definition for wetlands. They’re going backwards on the water quality.

Source: Second Bush-Kerry Debate, in St. Louis MO
, Oct 8, 2004

Fact Check: Contaminated home uses city water, not bottled

FACTCHECK on Water Contamination: John Kerry left a misleading impression when he tried to personalize a water-pollution issue:

KERRY: There’s a couple in Salem called Lisa and Randy Denuccio. They live next to a lake. They can’t drink the water.
Their kids can’t make lemonade now. They don’t take showers with the water. They have to buy bottled water.

FACTCHECK: But when an Associated Press reporter called the family after the debate, Lisa Denuccio said the family does in fact take showers:
“We can’t do without that.” The AP did quote her as saying they now use water from the city rather than their well. Kerry’s statement that they can’t shower with “the water” might be literally correct-
but might easily have led many listeners to think the Denuccio family is worse off than is the case. He should have come clean.

Make environmental justice an EPA priority

The problem of environmental justice is well-documented. Back in the 1980s, studies determined that most landfills were located near minority communities. In 1992, a Bush administration investigation confirmed that the poor face greater risk of hazardous
waste exposure and sustain more environmental costs than more fortunate Americans.

On Earth Day 2003, I announced a proposal to resume the battle against environmental injustice, in part by greatly elevating it priority for the EPA and other federal
enforcement agencies and in part by creating environmental empowerment zones, in which the impact of federal decisions on the health of low-income and minority citizens would have to be taken into account before they are implemented.

I also called for
a measure that will be critical not only in dealing with environmental injustice but also in dealing with environmental health issues generally: establishing a national tracking system for chronic diseases and environmental health hazards.

Safeguard the environment and grow the economy

Q: What about progressive environmental policies?

A: For 30 years in public life I have committed to environmental protection. My commitment is driven by the belief that we can safeguard the environment and grow our economy. I have fought hard to
reduce the threat of global warming by supporting renewable energy and increased funding for climate change research. I have also called on Bush to stop blocking progress and to engage in international efforts to mitigate the threat of climate change.

Source: MoveOn.org interview
, Jun 17, 2003

Voted YES on $2 billion more for Cash for Clunkers program.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. OBEY (D, WI-7): The cash for clunkers program has proven even more wildly popular than its strongest supporters had predicted. Just last month, Congress passed the program, which provided up to $4,500 if you trade in your old gas guzzler for a new car that gets better mileage. That was done in the hopes of spurring some new car sales and encouraging people to be a little more environmentally friendly. We provided $1 billion in the supplemental to get it going, enough for about 250,000 sales--which was just about exhausted in one week. This bill transfers $2 billion from the Department of Energy's Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee program, which doesn't expect to award funding until late next year.

Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. LEWIS (R, CA-41):
In the majority's haste to slam legislation with no time for consideration or amendments, we are now seeing the effects of such shortsighted martial law tactics.

Senator Feinstein tried to negotiate some changes to improve the program but was told that it was this way or the highway. Not one hearing on the Cash for Clunkers program, not one hearing on how the first billion dollars has been spent, not one hearing on how much money the program will need to get through the fiscal year.

Many of my colleagues will say, This is a great program, and it is necessary for the revitalization of the car industry. I'm not really going to argue with those goals. However, are we sure this program is working like it's supposed to? I don't think so. This program has only been up and running 1 week. If that is how the government is going to handle billion-dollar programs affecting all Americans, I ask, Whatever will we do if the administration takes control of our health care system?

Voted NO on prohibiting eminent domain for use as parks or grazing land.

To prohibit the involuntary acquisition of farmland & grazing land by government for parks, open space, or similar purposes. Exceptions include takings for use by:

public utility

road or other right of way

an aqueduct or pipeline

a prison or hospital

national disaster

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. CRAIG: "Eminent domain was elevated greatly as an issue following a highly controversial 2005 Supreme Court decision known as Kelo vs. The City of New London. Since that decision, we as a nation have allowed state & local governments to utilize eminent domain to force landowners to yield their property to private development. Farmers and ranchers in particular have become vulnerable to state and local governments taking their property for economic development or open space designations. My amendment is a very targeted amendment. It addresses only cases in which private working agricultural land is taken and turned into public open space."

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. HARKIN: This amendment doesn't reach the Kelo decision [because Kelo was about taking open space for private development]. Under this amendment they can still do that.

CRAIG. Oh, I disagree totally. We reach a portion of Kelo that is now most frequently impacting farms and ranches, and that is open space for open space.

HARKIN. The amendment has the Federal Government telling a local government what it can and cannot do within its own jurisdiction.

Letter from the National Conference of State Legislatures & US Conference of Mayors:

"This amendment is not only ill-advised, but it is also unconstitutional [because it] preempts state & local land use laws. The 5th Amendment expressly permits the taking of private property for public use provided just compensation is provided to the owner. The power of eminent domain has always been, and should remain, a state and local power."

Voted YES on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations.

A joint resolution disapproving the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on March 15, 2005, relating to the removal of coal- and oil-fired electric generating units from the list of major sources of hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule:

Limits smokestack emissions in a two-phase program founded on a market based capping system

Calls for the first cap to limit mercury emissions to 38 tons in 2010

Requires the second and final cap to begin in 2018 and stay fix at 15 tons

Voted NO on transportation demo projects.

McCain amendment to the transportation reauthorization bill (S. 1173) would require that funding for demonstration projects be covered by their respective state allocations instead of being funded individually in the transportation bill.
Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)78; N)22

Voted YES on reducing funds for road-building in National Forests.

Vote on an amendment to cut the $47.4 million provided for Forest Service road construction by $10 million, and to eliminate the purchaser credit program [which provides credits to timber companies to offset what they owe the government].

Voted YES on continuing desert protection in California.

Invoking cloture on the California desert protection bill. ["Invoking cloture" means "ending the discussion and calling a vote." A NO vote in this case would continue discussing whether to terminate the existing program, and hence is considered pro-business and/or anti-environment].
Status: Cloture Agreed to Y)68; N)23; NV)9

Reduce liability for hazardous waste cleanup.

Title: To provide relief for small businesses from liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). Summary:

Amends CERCLA to provide that persons shall be liable for response [cleanup] costs as non-owners or operators only if the total of material containing a hazardous substance was greater than 110 gallons of liquid material or 200 pounds of solid material.

Applies this exemption only to activities taking place before April 1, 2001.

Exempts a person from liability for response costs for municipal solid waste (MSW) as a non-owner or operator if the person is an owner, operator, or lessee of residential property from which all of the person's MSW was generated, or a certain small business or small charitable tax-exempt organization that generated all its MSW.

Makes nongovernmental entities that commence a contribution action liable to the defendant for all reasonable costs of defending the action if the defendant is not liable based on the above-described exemptions.

Adds to the list of parties eligible for de minimis [inconsequential] final settlements certain persons and businesses that demonstrate an inability or limited ability to pay response costs.

End commercial whaling and illegal trade in whale meat.

Kerry introduced a resolution for the International Whaling Commission

Expresses the sense of the Senate that the United States:

at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission, should remain firmly opposed to commercial whaling,

should initiate and support efforts to ensure that all activities conducted under reservations to the Commission's moratorium or sanctuaries are ceased,

should oppose the lethal taking of whales for scientific purposes unless it is specifically authorized by the Scientific Committee of the Commission,

should seek the Commission's support for specific efforts by member nations to end illegal trade in whale meat, and

should support the permanent protection of whale populations through the establishment of whale sanctuaries in which commercial whaling is prohibited;

At the 12th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, should oppose all efforts to reopen international trade in whale meat or to downlist any whale population; and

should make full use of all appropriate diplomatic mechanisms, relevant international laws and agreements, and other appropriate mechanisms to implement these goals.

Support UNCED Rio Declaration at 2002 conference.

Kerry introduced a resolution on World Summit on Sustainable Development

Expresses the sense of the Senate that having the President lead the U.S. delegation at the World Summit on Sustainable Development would send a strong signal of U.S. support.

Calls for the United States to: (1) take specified steps at the Summit, such as reaffirming its support for the implementation of commitments entered into at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), supporting efforts to improve the institutional structure for implementing the framework created by Agenda 21 and the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, remaining firmly opposed to commercial whaling, and supporting measures to increase the use of renewable sources of energy worldwide; and (2) provide leadership and pursue the negotiation of international agreements to address global climate change and to protect the marine environment.

Urges the President to identify priority international environmental agreements that the United States has signed during and following the UNCED that the Administration will present to the Senate for ratification.

The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) is the political voice of the national environmental movement and the only organization devoted full-time to shaping a pro-environment Congress and White House. We run tough and effective campaigns to defeat anti-environment candidates, and support those leaders who stand up for a clean, healthy future for America. Through our National Environmental Scorecard and Presidential Report Card we hold Congress and the Administration accountable for their actions on the environment. Through regional offices, we build coalitions, promote grassroots power, and train the next generation of environmental leaders.
The 2003 National Environmental Scorecard provides objective, factual information about the environmental voting records of all Members of the first session of the 108th Congress. This Scorecard represents the consensus of experts from 20 respected environmental and conservation organizations who selected the key votes on which Members of Congress should be graded. LCV scores votes on the most important issues of the year, including environmental health and safety protections, resource conservation, and spending for environmental programs. Scores are calculated by dividing the number of pro-environment votes by the total number of votes scored. The votes included in this Scorecard presented Members of Congress with a real choice on protecting the environment and help distinguish which legislators are working for environmental protection. Except in rare circumstances, the Scorecard excludes consensus action on the environment and issues on which no recorded votes occurred.

EPA must do better on mercury clean-up.

Kerry signed a letter from 45 Senators to EPA

To: Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Dear Administrator Leavitt:

We are writing to urge you to take prompt and effective action to clean up mercury pollution from power plants. The EPA’s current proposals on mercury fall far short of what the law requires, and they fail to protect the health of our children and our environment. We ask you to carry out the requirements of the Clean Air Act to protect our nation from toxic mercury contamination.

On January 30, 2004, EPA proposed two alternative rules to address mercury emissions. Unfortunately, both of these proposals fail to meet the Clean Air Act directives for cleaning up mercury. EPA's proposals permit far more mercury pollution, and for years longer, than the Clean Air Act allows.

The toxicity of mercury has been proven time and again by scientists around the world. The Agency's own scientists just released a study finding that approximately 630,000 infants were born in the US in the 12-month period,
1999-2000, with blood mercury levels higher than what is considered safe. This is a doubling of previous estimates.

The newest scientific studies show that controlling mercury emissions works. As we saw in Florida, sharp reductions in mercury pollution are mirrored by reductions in nearby fish populations. A study in northern Wisconsin indicated that reductions in the input of mercury from air corresponded with marked reductions in mercury fish tissue levels in the 1990s.

As the Administrator of the EPA, you have the legal authority and the responsibility to address mercury emissions and protect public health. We do not believe that EPA's current proposals are sufficient or defensible. We urge you to withdraw the entire proposed rule package and re-propose a rule for adequate public comment that meets the terms of the 1998 settlement agreement and is promulgated by the December 15, 2004 deadline.

Sponsored health impact bill for environmental health.

OnTheIssues.org Explanation: A classic 1980s study demonstrated that poor neighborhoods are burdened with more environmental hazards than rich neighborhoods. The 1980s study established the field of "environmental justice"; this bill addresses environmental justice and health justice.

OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: A bill to require health impact assessments and take other actions to improve health and the environmental quality of communities, and for other purposes.

SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. OBAMA: The Healthy Places Act of 2006 focuses on the built environment, which includes our homes, parks, and transportation systems. Like many other States, Illinois has already begun to take steps to improve the environment. City leaders in Chicago have recognized that many low-income families have no access to fresh foods and medicine because there are no grocery
stores and pharmacies in their neighborhoods. Retail Chicago, an initiative of the city's Department of Planning and Development, is now using redevelopment funds to entice local developers to bring grocery stores and pharmacies into these neighborhoods.

The Healthy Places Act of 2006 would expand these and other efforts to improve the planning and design of communities that can promote healthier living. It establishes and supports health impact assessment programs; better addressing environmental health issues; and creating a grant program to address environmental health hazards, particularly those that contribute to health disparities. Finally, the Healthy Places Act provides additional support for research on the relationship between the built environment and the health status of residents.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; never came to a vote.

Grants for beach water pollution under Clean Water Act.

Kerry co-sponsored grants for beach water pollution under Clean Water Act

Beach Protection Act of 2008 - Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (popularly known as the Clean Water Act) to include among eligible grant activities the development and implementation of programs for source tracking, sanitary surveys, and prevention efforts to address the identified sources of beach water pollution.
Requires grant recipients to identify:

the use of a rapid testing method;

measures for communication within 24 hours of the results of a water sample concerning pollutants to specified officials with authority to require the prevention or treatment of the sources of beach water pollution;

measures to develop and implement a beach water pollution source identification and tracking program for the coastal recreation waters that are not meeting applicable water quality standards for pathogens; and

a publicly accessible and searchable global information system database with information updated within 24 hours of its availability, organized by beach and with defined standards, sampling plan, monitoring protocols, sampling results, and number and cause of beach closing and advisory days.

Regulate all dog breeders down to kennels of 50 dogs.

Kerry co-sponsored PUPS: Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act

Congressional Summary:Amends the Animal Welfare Act to define a "high volume retail breeder" as a person who, in commerce, for compensation or profit: has an ownership interest in or custody of one or more breeding female dogs; and sells more than 50 of the offspring of such dogs for use as pets in any one-year period. Considers such a breeder of dogs to be a dealer.

Promulgates requirements for the exercise of dogs at facilities owned or operated by high volume retail breeders, including requiring daily access to exercise that allows the dogs to move sufficiently in a way that is not forced, repetitive, or restrictive; and is in an area that is spacious, cleaned at least once a day, free of infestation by pests or vermin, and designed to prevent the dogs from escaping.

Opponent's Comments (GSDCA, the German Shepherd Dog Club of America):In the past, legislation has excluded home/hobby breeders. This bill would, for the first time, require
home/hobby breeders to follow the strict USDA requirements, such as engineering standards designed for large commercial kennels and not homes. Such regulations would exceedingly difficult to meet in a home/residential breeding environment. If passed, PUPS would disastrously reduce purposely-bred pups for the public.

There is nothing in this bill that changes the status of already known substandard kennel violators. There is no increase in funding for additional inspectors, nor is increased inspection evaluation education included.

Dogs purposely bred for showing, trialing or other events often are not bred for several years due to many different reasons. Some of these dogs may never be bred, yet are included in the count.

Working kennels maintain a large dog population while they are evaluating dogs; if the dogs do not work out for the purpose for which they were intended, they are often sold as pets. This could bring those working/training kennels under USDA regulations.

Defines "invasive research" as research that may cause death, injury, pain, distress, fear, or trauma to great apes, including drug testing or exposure to a substance or isolation, or social deprivation.

Requires the permanent retirement of all great apes that are owned by the federal government and that are being maintained in any facility for the purpose of breeding for, holding for, or conducting invasive research.

Sets forth civil penalties for violations of this Act.

Establishes in the Treasury the Great Ape Sanctuary System Fund to be administered for construction, renovation, and operation of the sanctuary system for surplus chimpanzees.

Sponsored ban on breeding or possessing Big Cat species.

Prohibits any person from importing, exporting, transporting, selling, receiving, acquiring, purchasing, breeding, possessing, or owning any prohibited wildlife species (current law prohibits importing, exporting, transporting, selling, receiving, acquiring, or purchasing such a species in interstate or foreign commerce).

Defines "breeding" as facilitating the reproduction of prohibited wildlife species (any live species of lion, tiger, leopard, cheetah, jaguar, or cougar or any hybrid of such species) for commercial use.

Defines a list of exemptions to such prohibition by authorized persons.

Includes in the list of persons authorized to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, breed, possess, own, or purchase such species a wildlife sanctuary or a zoo accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums; and a person that is in possession of animals of such species that were born before the date of this Act's enactment.

112th Mid-Term Humane Scorecard: The Humane Society Legislative Fund has posted the final version of the 2011 Humane Scorecard, where you can track the performance of your federal lawmakers on key animal protection issues during last year. We rated legislators based on their voting behavior on measures such as agribusiness subsidies, lethal predator control, and the Endangered Species Act; their cosponsorship of priority bills on puppy mills, horse slaughter, animal fighting, and chimps in research; their support for funding the enforcement of animal welfare laws; and their leadership on animal protection.
All of the priority bills whose cosponsorships we're counting enjoy strong bipartisan support; in the House, each of the four now has more than 150 cosponsors.

The Humane Scorecard is not a perfect measuring tool, but creating some reasonable yardstick and allowing citizens to hold lawmakers accountable is central to our work. When the Humane Scorecard comes out each year, it helps clarify how the animal protection movement is doing geographically, by party affiliation, and in other categories. It helps us chart our course for animals by seeing where we have been effective, and where we need to improve.

Strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting.

Kerry co-sponsored strengthening prohibitions against animal fighting

Sen. CANTWELL. I reintroduce today the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007. This legislation has won the unanimous approval of the Senate several times, but unfortunately has not yet reached the finish line.

There is no doubt, animal fighting is terribly cruel. Dogs and roosters are drugged to make them hyper-aggressive and forced to keep fighting even after suffering severe injuries such as punctured eyes and pierced lungs. It's all done for "entertainment" and illegal gambling. Some dogfighters steal pets to use as bait for training their dogs, while others allow trained fighting dogs to roam neighborhoods and endanger the public.

The Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act will strengthen current law by making the interstate transport of animals for the purpose of fighting a felony and increase the punishment to three years of jail time. This is necessary because the current misdemeanor penalty has proven ineffective--considered a "cost of doing business"
by those in the animal fighting industry which continues unabated nationwide.

These enterprises depend on interstate commerce, as evidenced by the animal fighting magazines that advertise and promote them. Our bill also makes it a felony to move cockfighting implements in interstate or foreign commerce. These are razor-sharp knives known as "slashers" and ice pick-like gaffs designed exclusively for cockfights and attached to the birds' legs for fighting.

This is long overdue legislation. It's time to get this felony animal fighting language enacted. It's time for Congress to strengthen the federal law so that it can provide as a meaningful deterrent against animal fighting. Our legislation does not expand the federal government's reach into a new area, but simply aims to make current law more effective. It is explicitly limited to interstate and foreign commerce, so it protects states' rights in the two states where cockfighting is still allowed.

Fund projects for international conservation of cranes.

Kerry signed Crane Conservation Act

A bill to assist in the conservation of cranes by supporting and providing, through projects of persons and organizations with expertise in crane conservation, financial resources for the conservation programs of countries the activities of which directly or indirectly affect cranes and the ecosystem of cranes.

Requires the Secretary of the Interior to provide financial assistance for approved projects relating to the conservation of cranes, using amounts in the Crane Conservation Fund established by this Act. Allows a project proposal to be submitted by:

any wildlife management authority of a country located in the African, Asian, European, or North American range of a species of crane that carries out at least one activity that affects crane populations;

the Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora; and

any person or organization with demonstrated expertise in the conservation of cranes.

Establishes the Crane Conservation Fund in the Multinational Species Conservation Fund.

Authorizes the Secretary to convene an advisory group representing public and private organizations actively involved in the conservation of cranes to assist in carrying out this Act.

Fund studies of invasive species and algal blooms.

Kerry co-sponsored the National Sea Grant College Program Reauthorization Act

Amends the National Sea Grant College Program Act to authorize competitive grants for university research on invasive species, specifically: (1) the zebra mussel; (2) oyster diseases and oyster-related human health risks; and (3) Pfiesteria piscicida and other harmful algal blooms. Became Public Law No: 105-160.